Huckabee: Gay Marriage = Bestiality?

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Mike Huckabee (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mike.huckabee.html) is taking heat from some members of the gay community over recent comments that appeared to equate gay marriage with bestiality.

In an interview with the religious Web site beliefnet.com (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873_1.html), Huckabee pushes back on recent critics who have called some of his positions "radical."

"I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal," he said in the interview, published on the Web site Wednesday. "Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again."

more...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/18/huckabee-takes-heat-for-gay-marriage-comments/
_____________________________________________

wow

[Hulkein]

It's just a slippery slope argument. He didn't compare gay sex to bestiality imo.

[Keller]

I don't think he compared homosexuality to beastiality, either.

At the same time, I think the argument is weak. How slippery could the slope reasonably get? There is a cogent argument for allowing homosexual couples to marry given the complex administrative system set in place to benefit married persons. I'm not sure how that would apply to a person marrying an animal.

[ClydeR]

"I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal," he said in the interview, published on the Web site Wednesday. "Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again."

Huckabee is exactly right. Once you say that the constitution grants the right for two men to marry, how can you not then say that it grants the right to two men and one woman to marry? Judges are creating these rights out of thin air. It's not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I suppose somebody will find a quote where James Madison once said he thought homosexual marriage was alright, but it's not anywhere in the constitution.

We should all want our courts to be faithful to the law as it is written. But right now there's a judicial tyranny, with judges making up the law, and that's not their role.

[CrystalTears]

Oh boy...

[Gan]

(and the bait has been taken)

:lol:

http://z.about.com/d/saltfishing/1/0/J/4/snapper3.jpg

[Keller]

Huckabee is exactly right. Once you say that the constitution grants the right for two men to marry, how can you not then say that it grants the right to two men and one woman to marry? Judges are creating these rights out of thin air. It's not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I suppose somebody will find a quote where James Madison once said he thought homosexual marriage was alright, but it's not anywhere in the constitution.

We should all want our courts to be faithful to the law as it is written. But right now there's a judicial tyranny, with judges making up the law, and that's not their role.

I'm beginning to believe you were not dropped on your head as a child but instead that your mother repeated swung your limp body against a large, hardwood tree. Perhaps a hickory?

[Savageheart]

Evil evil Gan...

[Methais]

BIBLE SAYS 2 MEN OUGHT NOT LAY TOGETHER!
http://www.cinekklesia.com/images/articles/SlingBlade_mt.jpg

[Hulkein]

Great movie.

[Clove]

Dude. What. Wait. What's wrong with gay bestiality?

[Gan]

Great movie.
A classic.

[Latrinsorm]

It's just a slippery slope argument.True, but as Ganalon can tell you there's no place for it in a legislative discussion. :D

[Tsa`ah]

True, but as Ganalon can tell you there's no place for it in a legislative discussion. :D

Right, and it seems "marriage" is the last holdout between separation of church and state.

Remove marriage from the law books, recognize current marriages as civil unions, and tax everyone in the same manner. If children are a concern, each parent has the ability to get 1/2 credit for each child.

From there, all arguments against the civil union between two people of the same gender become "religious" and thus not applicable in the legal arena.

[TheEschaton]

God, ClydeR keeps on delivering. Holy fuck.

[thefarmer]

I actually read an article, in Newsweek I think, that talked about how the Supreme Court has handed out less rulings than previous groups, on much less weighty topics.

The guy they interviewed mentioned that he was content to let go of some of the power that prior judges had seen fit to use.

If I weren't lazy, I'd pull a link up...

[Bhuryn]

So, I'm all for people of whatever sex combination getting legal/tax/civil unioin status if they want, but my problem is...

...if you're gay, and Church A hates gay people, why would you get angry when said church decides not to acknowledge said union as a marriage? It's not like "marriage" offers any specific benefit beyond what a civil union would... but still...

...Isn't that sorta like a Jewish guy getting angry because his application to the local Nazi party keeps getting rejected?

Not to equate the body of christ (read: said church [ClydeRs church]) with the Nazi party or anything, still though...

...I don't get it.

Like, if I invented SuperCoolStatus and you wanted to be SuperCoolStatus but I hated the color of your hair so I tell you, "no, you can't have SuperCoolStatus because your hair sucks..." and you tell everyone "Hey, I'm SuperCoolStatus..."

I mean seriously, I invented it, fuck off you can't have it...

... I guess that's where my confusion lies.

[Tolwynn]

BIBLE SAYS 2 MEN OUGHT NOT LAY TOGETHER!

And apparently all that accomplished was to get them doing it standing in bathroom stalls.

[Gelston]

Who gives a fuck?